I have valued your E-mail messages for as many years as you
have been sending them, and see you as exceptionally well-informed and balanced
on the subject of Israel's relations with its neighbors. I have written letters
to the editor on the subject, to the displeasure of local Jewish leaders, since
a first letter in 1984. You have been one of my major guides. I was first
concerned to write to protest the coverup of the USS Liberty attack by Israeli
planes and ships, for which I took Israel to task until I came to the belief
that they had played their usual role, doing dirty work for the United States.

I've seen a video of Noam Chomsky trying not to talk about
9/11 by saying it was nothing of importance, of which I made a transcript. I
know Kevin Barrett personally and admire him as a man of virtue and a patriotic
American. Yes, those who refuse to see that the 9/11 attacks were a U.S.
project, necessarily with the cooperation of Israel and Saudi Arabia, are
in effect "the enemy," as you say. Those of us who call it a "false flag"
attack are considered incipient terrorists who expect themselves to be among the
first to fill the detention centers being arranged for us by the Bush
administration and its larcenous friends at Halliburton, if we don't shut up, or
even if we do.

Why should we go so far as to consider unbelievers "the
enemy"?

We deal with them as normally as we can, which requires
effort. Members of families have differing beliefs on the subject, which causes
detraction from family harmony. Typically they want us to try not to take our
ideas so seriously. If one sees a train coming because of better vision or
better hearing, or a more advantageous viewpoint, he warns people on the track
to get out of the way. In this case, they throw rocks and tell us not to spoil
their picnic.

The idea is that we have studied the facts and can come to no
other conclusion, any more than you could if you were to examine the subject
with curiosity and objectivity. I have just completed a study of the Pentagon
event which I find clearly reveals U.S. military complicity. It is 36 pages, in
effect an outline for a book. There is no doubt. My Jewish friends, with one
exception, wonder if I have become an anti-Semite in my advanced years. This
country, step by step, has been ruined under the Bush administration for the
simple reason that the media looks away, so that the 9/11 truth that would send
George W. Bush and company to prison cannot be used against him. Both of his
elections were rigged, as we who live in Columbus, Ohio are aware, where the
tally came out in his favor despite well-proven machinations, currently under
review in a new action at law here. He is not truly president, but a
usurper, one with no conscience who has repeatedly and reliably proven his
heresy.

If the truth of 9/11 had come out in 2002, there would have
been no invasion of Afghanistan, no Iraq war, none of the arrogant, purposely
self-destructive acts of government that have occurred. The economy is about to
fall apart, with no visible bottom, giving Bush the environment he needs to use
National Security Presidential Directive 51 to declare martial law and cancel
the November election. There is much more to it than this. In any year that
the truth had been given space in the New York Times, he could have been
stopped. Now it's too late. The scoffers, whom you have joined, to my
disappointment, can shortly declare victory. Their prize is a ruined nation
with a broken military and a well-deserved reputation in the world as a monster
of calamity and death. This is the country for which I avidly went to war in
World War II. I, and all other veterans of that war or any of the other devised
conflicts since then, are betrayed. We fly the flag for a past era, not the
present, other than as a symbol of what appears to be a vain hope.

You must forgive Kevin Barrett if he was exasperated with
Noam Chomsky. So am I. If you saw the video I did (of which I made a
transcript), it would be clear to you that Chomsky knows the truth, which makes
him an officer in the movement to destroy America. America. I know we're
naive, but we thought it was an excellent idea. Kevin has sacrificed a normal
life to fight the true war for his country, for no profit and even less future.
Kevin knows what the result will be, as the know-nothing bloc lies in his way,
transfixed by the tell-nothing media. It's a personal thing for any patriot.

You are now a declared part of that bloc, and to my chagrin,
a strong voice in it--one that is well aware of the storm of speaking out
against a majority and the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." You have
always been one to go a layer deeper than the rest to found your beliefs. You
should come down to our layer on this one.

I still trust your integrity, which is why I write this.
Because of your situation and your relationships there is a strong pull for you
not to break away from the nay-sayers, the know-nothings, see-nothings, hear
nothings, speak nothings who cower behind the media wall that has been provided
for their comfort.

Chomsky has been forced to choose, and he steps behind the
wall. I understand your position as similar. You have dedicated your life and
your personal well-being to bringing out the truth of Zionism, a voice badly
needed; yet if you were to speak out to seriously question the 9/11 event you
feel that voice would be stilled by the loss of respect by those Jews, and
non-Jews who have come to sympathize with the Jews, who have come to your side.
Jews, by polling data, are the prominent element to ridicule the "9/11
truthers," if for no other reason, that Israel was the only nation benefitted by
the attack, and is also one which would have a very painful experience if an
honest investigation were conducted.

Your choice to see and speak is not one to be considered as a
choice with equal effects. It involves the destruction of the United States of
America, killed with a lie, proof that instead of being a democratic republic
that set a pattern for all the world, it is the ultimate proof, for all who
consider it in the future, that it is an illusion, a pitiful attempt to appear
to give the power of government to the people themselves. As in the wolf pack,
the survivors will be the strong and the merciless. But no matter how well they
succeed, they are still wolves, not human beings.

Yours in earnest,

James R. Hanson

Attorney at Law, retired

Columbus, Ohio

7/23/08

Shamir
responds:

Dear James, I
value your sincere words. Certainly the truth of 9/11 is more complicated than
the government version; I have no doubt about it. But consider:

If you were an
extremely powerful Jew able to do 9/11, why would you attack Twin Towers? Would
not you rather send 20 Arab fanatics in full battle dress to massacre a
kindergarten, a school, and eat hearts of American babies in live broadcast?

And besides, my
article is about something else. It is about Noam Chomsky who is entitled not to
be abused whatever are his thoughts. Chomsky was not afraid to write foreword of
Faurisson; he is afraid of nothing. But he has other fish to fry, and he fries
it extremely well.

Wishing you
every success in unmasking the plotters,

Shamir

From Ken
Freeland, Texas

Dear Adam

I must concur with Professor Zaidi, as well as Jim Petras,
Jeff Blankfort and yes, Kevin Barrett, regarding the role played by Noam Chomsky
-- that of Left Gatekeeper. In fact, I think one can almost the question to two
issues when it comes to Left gatekeeping: Israel/Palestine (and most especially
the question of Zionist control of US Middle East policy) and 9/11 (whether or
not one accepts the government's Al-Queda conspiracy theory or not). Anyone who
openly addresses these issues and at least asks intelligent questions is a gate
opener, anyone who prates on dogmatically (like Chomsky) that Israel nothing but
a US satrap and the official version of 9/11 will do just fine is a Left
gatekeeper: one who uses his or her influence to discourage others from
questioning this "received wisdom."

You live in Israel, Adam. Imagine how you would feel if the
suicide bombing attributed to the Palestinian Arabs turned out to be an inside
job, perpetrated by your own Jewish government. How would you feel then, when
you heard people talking about the "stupendous martyrdoms" of the bombers? The
9/11 Truth movement (if which I am a longstanding member) has not been able to
demonstrate conclusively (yet!) that 9/11 was an inside job (by our government)
or a false flag operation (by a foreign government), but we have been able to
demonstrate conclusively is the logical impossibility of the official
explanation for the events of 9/11, as well as the fact that it was used to
launch several Middle Eastern wars which did nothing to punish the alleged
perpetrators (and everything to benefit Israel and the military-industrial
complex).

Kevin Barrett is no mere 911 enthusiast. He is the news
anchor on the up and coming noliesradio.org....an internet news service with a
9/11 truth focus. Moreover, his characterization of Chomsky is spot on, at
least as far as his style and his Left gatekeeper role are concerned. Is
Chomsky valueless then? That all depends. Chomsky can in fact be recommended
to the neophyte academic who is just beginning to question his or her
government. Because Chomsky is prolific in describing the evil of WHAT our
government is doing with its foreign policy. The problem comes with his
explanations of WHY the government is doing all these evil things: he is a
virtual apologist for the Israel lobby, constantly dismissing its influence as
negligible. But thousands of victims know otherwise. Here one should rip the
volume of Chomsky away from the (advanced) inquiring reader, and give him
something substantial: say, a book by Jim Petras or Jonathan Cook. When it
comes to explaining US perfidy, there is more truth in one page of Petras than
in two hours of Chomsky's droning delivery.

I am sorry that you appear to lack empathy with Americans who
have been had by our government with respect to 9/11. You apparently nurture a
conspiracy theory of your own in which the plotters are enemies of mammon and
its minions. We in the 9/11 Truth movement have good reason to suspect
otherwise, but the evidence remains mostly circumstantial. But the truth will
out one day. And when it does, Chomsky and those who defend his lack of
intellectual rigor on this question will be deemed irrelevant, perhaps even to
have been obstructionist. And I would like to ask you personally to answer the
following question Adam, which must be answered by all those who, like you,
invest the events of 9/11 with symbolic significance: if the perpetrators were
so spirited about their attack on these symbols of American power, where is
their signature? 9/11 Truth would have little basis to exist if the 9/11
plotters, whoever they were, gave a clear accounting of themselves,
manifesto-style, to a terrorized world. But this is just what did NOT happen.
You and those who believe similarly must ask yourself: why go through all the
trouble of planning this "superb action" that shocked the world, and not have a
thing to say about its purpose? Is that really how terrorists operate? Do they
not commit acts of terrorism in the first place to publicize their cause? Is
not taking credit for the act a sine qua non of all genuine terrorism?
Why is it so absent here that the government had to manufacture "Bin
Laden" videos that were afterwards proved to be fraudulent? These questions
cannot be begged.

I would encourage you to educate yourself to the scholarship
of the 9/11 truth movement and familiarize yourselves with our essential
arguments, instead of glibly dissing them. Perhaps start out with Dr. David Ray
Griffin's classic study and proceed from there. We need scientific analysis
here, Adam, not rhetoric. Focusing on the style of some of the players here has
distracted you from the substance. As one tomato said to the other tomato:
you're falling behind: time to ketchup!!

Peace,
Ken Freeland

Shamir
replies:

Dear Ken, I
wrote <
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/ParadiseNow.htm> about possibility of
the Palestinian terrorist attacks being orchestrated by Israeli security forces.
Yes, it is possible. But only minor attacks. Airplane hijacks etc are too
tricky. They may allow something to happen; but to organize from scratch is
another thing altogether. I fully agree with you that the government version is
unacceptable, and I support your right to search for what actually happened. But
equally I support Noam Chomsky’s right to stay away from this controversy. If
you and I can go beyond Noam, it is only because Noam secured a territory of
discourse for our advance. As for Left Gatekeepers: this may refer only to
people who actually block our ideas to go through, people who actually fight
against us. None of these refers to Noam Chomsky, and I find him innocent of
this charge.

From Richard
Wilcox, Tokyo

Dear Israel,

I got my radical education from Chomsky in the 1990s (yes, that recently)
through the Boulder, Colorado, Alternative Radio audio archives produced by
David Barsamian. I recall one of the best interviews was titled "The US Economic
System: Robbing People Blind." That interview could take place today without
batting an eyelash. Of course, Chomsky does not target the Federal Reserve or
International Jewry, so that is where he draws the line, but you could learn
something from the man. In recent years I went of Chomsky once I learned of the
power of the Israel Lobby and the flaws in his logic on that topic. I once
prompted Barsamian to interview Blankfort but I think it would be a cold day in
H before that would happen. By the way, I noticed another top Jewish political
critic, Michel Chossudovsky also affirms the idea of Israel as the US pitbull to
carry out "Washington's" orders in the Middle East. This thesis crumbles on
thorough examination (it is the World Jewry/Israel Lobby after all) but won't
lose it's legs due to heavy control by Jews and their unthinking followers in
the US Left.

Regarding Kevin Barrett, a good soul to be sure, so it is too bad he went nasty
and ad hominem attack on Chomsky rather than simply refuting his flawed logic
regarding 911. I pointed out to Barrett the hypocrisy of "911 Truthers"
insisting that the Left Gatekeepers are hypocritical when the 911 Truthers
themselves are not Truth Troops when it comes to a more historically accurate
understanding of World War II (so often evoked to hammer home the point about
rising US police state) and the "Jewish Holocaust." We constantly hear the
refrain from these folks (and now Jim Marrs has a new big book about those evil
"Nazis" taking over the world, not World Jewry) about how badly the Nazis
behaved and the alleged atrocities of the Nazis against Jews, but when it comes
to a scientifically rigorous and historically balanced examination of the
Holocaust on a par with what brought down Building 7 on 9-11, there is a
gigantic double standard which scatters concrete dust across the horizon. The
911 Truthers cannot respond to this double standard and prefer to ignore us
Holocaust Revisionist folks as kooks, I guess.

Furthermore, the 911 Truthers are reluctant to deeply investigate the
accumulative data that 911 was not only an "inside job" but a Jew Job, as
documented by our good friend Brother Nathanael at
www.realjewnews.com. While Barrett has broached this topic with some fine
guests on his program including Splitting the Sky and Barry Zwicker, he does not
take the ball and run with it. Wonder why.

Just a few observations from Mars,

Best, Richard Wilcox, Tokyo

Shamir replies: Indeed there
are some agendas beside that of Truthers.

From Jocelyn
Braddel, Dublin

Dear Israel, I
really like and welcome this text about Noam Chomsky. A very kind man, a man who
never lets the honest moment pass him by without taking note of it. I should
have another Handstand ready in a couple of weeks’ time and you can be sure that
your text will be there! I hope you and your family are always well.

Best regards,
Jocelyn

From Noam
Chomsky, Massachusetts

Thanks for sending. I won't comment on the TM, or Petras.

On what you wrote, only one comment. It's true that I've
never supported a "one-state settlement," and still don't. I also don't support
it for other complex societies either: like the Spanish state, Belgium, the UK,
and others. But since childhood, I've always, without exception, advocated a
binational state. I've written about that extensively, including books and
articles. To my knowledge, I'm one of the very few people who actually does
advocate a binational state -- and I know of no one who advocates a one-state
settlement. Note that I say "advocate," not "propose" or "support." One can
propose or support anything one likes -- that everyone should love one another
and live in peace, for example. Advocacy requires more than that.

Noam

Shamir
responds:

I stand
corrected. Bi-national state in Palestine was discussed by Magnes and Brit
Shalom some 50 years ago, but not often since then; that’s why I made this
mistake. Sorry.

From Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon

I, too, support rational discourse. And the Jews are not responsible for every
ill on Earth--although there is circumstantial evidence in abundance they played
a role in 911.

The problems I have with the external-mover theory of 911 are the following:

*NO personnel or officials responsible for air defenses and tactical responses
to such situation were disciplined to any extent or otherwise punished;
*Dick Cheney took over prime responsibility for air defense in Continental US
(CONUS) a month prior to the attacks;
*Cheney was a signatory on a document in the 1990s longing for such an attack;
*Powdering of concrete, presence of thermite/thermate, the rate of collapse,
cool-burning fire, etc. ALL point to a controlled demolition using internal
explosive charges--not an air crash. (Note that in WWII the Empire State
Building survived the crash of a fully loaded bomber plane!);
*Likewise, in the so-called Pentagon attack we see no debris field, wings,
engines, correct-size entry hole, amount of fire and damage consistent with such
a strike, etc.;
*There is evidence that both US and ISraeli intelligence had the so-called
hijackers under surveillance and that an Israeli film crew was set up prior to
the "attack" at the WTC;
*WTC #7 collapsed WITHOUT any external causes; and,
*No substantial efforts were made to close the U.S.-Mexican border, where
Mid-Easterners could reasonably be expected to infiltrate from.

I do not doubt that U.S. enemies are capable of striking the U.S. I just don't
think this is an example.

Tom Mysiewicz

From Hesham Bahari, Egypt

Funny I got this email just after I got yours in defence of
Chomsky.

Both you and Chomsky belong to my favourite authors. So I
hope you understand my disappointment concerning your reaction to this question.

I'm not saying Israel did it, but whoever did is no angel,
that's for sure. That's a very naive thought indeed!!!

Empires are built on false flag operations, which sooner or
later brings them down as well. Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Bay, The US Liberty,
Berlin's Reichstag etc...

Taking in consideration the neo-con program which started in
the 80ies if not before I see no problem in explaining 911, not the whos and
hows and whens of it, but the whys.

It's all plain common sense. So please don't mix it up with
angelology :)

Any way, I don't like people grasping my buttonhole more than
you do. But I will keep to my Griffin so long. He makes sense to me.

And of course I agree fully with your defence of Chomsky, in
spite of my disappointment.

Best,

Hesham

F.Y.I.Air Traffic Controller Peter Zalewski was responsible for both New York Tower
crashes
and also was controller for Egypt 990 crash in 1999Israel Defense Force Sayeret Matkal Branch -- Sayeret Matkal is a
deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of
foreign (US) defense, financial, industrial and diplomatic secrets and the theft
and destruction of foreign weapons and research facilities. They did 9-11.
They were tough enough, bold enough, ruthless enough, and
Jewish-supremacist-racist enough to do 9-11 and lie to our faces and mock us
for suspecting them ever since. They are tough enough to destroy our economy
and end our threat as a source of law and justice which they are doing very
successfully right now. They are determined to finish us off before we can take
in the facts and develop an organized response.

Shamir replies: I also do not
believe the government version, but this one was too powerful an attack to
credit the bad guys with. It's like you’ve had a great night with a girl, and
then somebody tells you that she was sent to you by CIA...

From R Logan, the US

Hello Israel Shamir,

911 was a blood sacrifice to Lucifer by the banking elite. 911 along with many
other "events" are only symptoms of the problem. It is like western medicine,
where they treat the symptoms instead of the problem. The patients continue to
die. We need to wake up and figure out how to eradicate the problem instead of
the many symptoms that they can continually produce for our consumption.

Stu

The subject of Noam Chomsky and 9/11 apparently touched an
important spot for many readers. Today we have some very powerful and insightful
letters, notably a letter from intelligence community connected Jim Dean, who
notices details missed by others, the architect Mark W. Chambers, with his
knowledge of construction, Frank Scott provides deep explanation of 9/11
movement, Prof Hatem Radwan offers a new solution of the mystery, Akira
Doujimaru provides technical details, Kim Petersen, Paul Bennett, Fried Tischler
add their insights, and the Bulgarian Passionaria, Blagovesta Doncheva speaks of
her disappointment with Chomsky.

As for me, I am glad that you have a chance to express your
views and share them with others. I also remain with my views regarding 9/11. I
was impressed with the attack, and it did not rub off. Thus a man who has spent
a passionate night with a mysterious blonde, may be reluctant to admit that she
was sent by the CIA.

As for Noam Chomsky, he was, and is the man who gave me new
tools of discourse in 1990, when the Soviet Union was falling apart. He also
never attacked me or my friends, and that was not easy, I am sure. His views are
more subtle than his adversaries and supporters perceive. So he may be certain
of my respect and admiration.

Shamir

From Jim Dean, Alabama

Dear Israel,

The anthrax angle seems to get lost in the shuffle here, and
it is a key part to all of this.

The Intel community had known beforehand what the best way to
use anthrax would be. And that would be to get 50 martyrs to go around to 50
metropolitan cities and pass anthrax tainted money around, including some
airport stops.

After a few day with mass outbreaks becoming known and that
the currency was the distribution vehicle, the models showed the economy would
shut down. No one would touch any cash...not knowing that the perpetrators would
probably not have a lot of the stuff.

But what happened was a very targeted use of the small amount
they had, and it was used to get the most press coverage. And there were no
martyrs. The effect was to scare the hell out of people, and to then herd them
into support for an attack on whoever, and that is exactly what happened.

The anthrax deal had all the makings of a classic 'off the
shelf' plan which certain agencies have ready for if and when they need to steer
the public a certain way and do it quickly. I can think of only two intelligence
agencies that could have pulled this off and gotten away with it. And I don't
think ours did it.

You will notice how the media stayed off the story when the
attempt to frame the poor patsy began to look like an obvious set up. He is
suing the media now to find out who the leakers were. I wish him good luck. The
patsy for the Olympic bombing here in Atlanta died a couple of years ago due to
obesity complications. He also knew what it was like to be on the short end of
the stick.

The other thing that surprised the Intel community was that
with the invasion of Afghanistan and all the losses they took they were not able
to launch any attacks here, including the ones which brother Shamir describes,
loner attacks in shopping centers, etc, where the perpetrator was not part of a
network where you have multiple chances to stop due to intercepting their
communications. Any good cop or counter Intel person will tell you that stopping
these loner types attacks is impossible.

It came out later that Osama's goal was to bring the US into
a combat situation in the MidEast and suffer a long drawn out Viet Nam style
defeat that would also topple the Arab Kingdoms, a semi version of the Christian
evangelical loonies 'end times'. So under that scenario additional attacks here
were not needed. What was needed would be growing anti-war sentiment and that
has come to pass, but not for the reasons that Osama may have wished.

To this day most Americans do not know that our own Civil War
stated out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln
warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in
the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act
of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships
and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end
Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still
revered here today in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending
their treatment of Tibet, use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports
that interesting twist over here.

To this day I can rarely find a military officer, especially
a Yankee, than knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have
been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and
cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the
professional historians. It has something to do with hurting book sales.

Intellectual dishonesty is an epidemic here. Intellectual
honesty has been replaced with an empowerment shortcut that eliminates years of
research in the archives. Everyone is entitled to the version of an even that
they like best. And that is the end of the story.

I ran into this in a major way when confronting Zioholics
with Jewish sourced material that devastated their positions. The Zios working
with the Nazis during WWII upset them the most. But I found that 99 out of a 100
just completely ignored the archival proof. It was a programmed response as
virtually 100% of them did that. For a such a smart people I was quite
surprised.

Another version of this is when attempting to deprogram
Christian Zionists over here I use declassified US intel material. It shocks the
hell out of them. They never challenge the material as it is irrefutable (like
the Liberty incident) but they, too, fall back on 'preferring their version of
the event'. They put a human right spin on it. They have a right to believe
whatever they want, for any reason that they want.

When I did my prison interviews here years ago I was shocked
to see that the young gang bangers laughed when I asked them what they thought
about white slavery. They thought I was joking with them. They really believed
that only black people had ever been slaves.

This was not intellectual dishonesty on their part, but a
horrible education system and a cult of victimization...a kind of knock off of
the Hebrew Klan Jews claiming that the main event of WWII was the slaughter of
the Jews. The other people were of no consequence whatsoever. We are not equal
after all, especially in victimhood.

But I must say that over the years I have deprogramed some
Zionist Jews but I have yet to deprogram a Christian Zionist. They lay the devil
smear on you and run away so you can't get them to even listen. They are trained
well.

My point here is that if military officers today still have
no idea that our own civil war was an aggressively staged event, the kind that
Germans got hanged for at Nuremburg, I don't give much chance of the 911
unknowns getting any traction even it the material becomes available down the
road.

Martin Luther King's last night of his life orgy tapes have
been known about in certain circles for many years now. The local cops had his
room bugged and like using multiple hookers to relax before a busy next day.
None other than Ralph David Abernathy mentioned this in his book. Our mass media
over here completely ignored it.

When I share this with black folks they accuse me of wickedly
smearing Mr. King. When I tell them that Abernathy was the source they lock up.
They look like a kid when explaining that their really isn't a Santa Claus. I am
not moralizing on King here. Both Johnson and Kennedy reduced the Secret Service
into being pimps by requiring them to bring their hookers in and out of the
White House. When Johnson's hooker came in all the secretaries stopped typing so
there was total silence and they could hear better. When they finally heard the
toilet flush they would all go back to the people's business. I am not aware of
anyone ever resigning over the indignity.

George Bush's grandaddy, Prescot Bush, had his companies
seized during WWII for 'trading with the enemy'. But what is really astounding
it that the $3 million that the Treasury department got for them, old Prescott's
friend miraculously got the Feds to return the money to him. That money founded
the Bush political dynasty and we would have most likely had neither president
These archives are at Fort Meade. They are public and our media will not touch
them with a ten foot pole.

The biggest disappointment of all my years in TV and
journalism and my former careers before that, is how few people are really
interested in the truth. When they say they are, what 90% of them really mean is
their version of the truth.

Did Standard Oil of New Jersey refuel German subs at sea
during WWII? Yes.

Did ITT (International Telegraph and Telephone) design the
guidance systems for the V1 and V2 rockets and deliver several upgrades during
the war via Switzerland? Yes.

Did ITT make ball bearings here and ship them to Germany via
Sweden? Yes. Was the head of ITT a retired American Army officer? Yes.

Did US banks move money around for Germany during WWII? Yes.
But nobody cares.

That is the harshest reality. Those of us who risk life and
limb to dig it out are doing so for a dwindling audience.

Jim Dean

Heritage TV...Atlanta

From Mark W. Chambers, Canada

Dear Mr. Shamir,

I first wrote you in late 2001 or early 2002, if I recall
correctly; and at that time it was to express my gratitude for your empathy for
the land and native people of Palestine and your brilliant writing. Since that
time I believe I have read every piece on your website, every posting on
your readers list, as well as your 4 recent books (or are there more?). My
intention for much time now has been to join the reader's list as a contributor
and not merely a reader. The timing of your latest piece "Noam Chomsky and the
9/11 Crusaders" has motivated me to do just that. In fact, it is because of
9/11/2001 that I became aware of you and your writing for on the day of 11
September 2001 when my oldest son exclaimed, as he was watching live television
coverage, the tower is collapsing, I ran to the TV in disbelief repeating "that
is impossible". The characteristics of the collapse were and are impossible:
based on the aircraft impact and low temperature fires the anatomy of the
collapse totally defies the laws of physics, properties of materials, and design
fundamentals of architecture and engineering.

That aside, I immediately began searching for alternative
coverage of what had transpired because I suspected something was foul in the
state of the United States and assumed the main stream media
would serve up its usual propaganda and disinformation. It was when I tuned in,
on one particular occasion, to Arab News that I came across an article by
yourself on issues in the Holy Land. I was so moved by your writing that I was
compelled to send off a brief, but heartfelt, note to you.

So 9/11 brought me to you and your writings initially and
9/11 has me responding nearly seven years later. Since 11 September 2001 I have
read voraciously on the subject from Paul Thompson, to Michael Ruppert, to
Robert Fisk, to Michel Chossudovsky, to Ramzy Baroud, to Edward Said, to David
Ray Griffin, to many others, all the while tracking the movements of ZOG through
your writings and readers list. Not everyone has come to the same conclusion.
For instance Robert Fisk, I believe, still makes reference to the 19 hijackers
while Michael Ruppert pinpoints Dick Cheney as the maestro of 9/11. I also
exchanged a few emails with Michael Neumann regarding an article posted on
Counterpunch in which I challenged Mr. Neumann's perpetuation of the 'official'
explanation of 9/11, in particular the dynamics of the buildings' collapses. He
responded saying an architect friend of his had also mentioned the anomolies to
him and that he would delve into it more. Similarly, Mr. Chomsky can consider
this event however he sees fit. As you rightly point out, he has other fish to
fry. I did read the email exchanges between Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Barrett and
regret it degenerated to an acrimonious and stalemate position, however, I was
disturbed that Mr. Chomsky did not appear to acknowledge the direct and causal
link between what he referred to as a relatively small event of 9/11 and the
so-called war on terror (actually war of terror as someone correctly stated) and
the dismantling of the US Constitution and, by extension, the impact on the
gutless, heartless, and soulless government of my country, Canada.

Mr. Chomsky is critical of the 9/11 truthers seemingly
because they have not been long standing opponents of US imperialism and its
decades-long devastation of foreign populations, environments, and economies.
However, can the awakening of a self-described Reagan Republican be so bad? This
is how Richard Gage, the San Francisco architect who started Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, describes himself. In my view, the deconstruction and
analysis of the 9/11 event leads directly into the deconstruction and analysis
and reconciliation of the global events which it precipitated. Can such a Reagan
Republican be satisfied with a half-baked explanation or could this be a
snowball in motion?

A call for an independent investigation of 9/11 was
recently tabled in the Arizona Legislature by Senator Karen Johnson and in the
Candian Parliament by deputy leader of the New Democratic Party Libby Davies. I
am not so naive as to think the ruling elite will be overly phased by the rising
rabble but what else can we do? Having said this, I am suspicious of the NDP as
I have a feeling the party severely fleeced the previously intrepid Svend
Robinson for his attempt to meet with Yassar Arafat a few years ago which sent
Mr. Robinson back to Vancouver, tail between his legs, to deal with local
neighbourhood issues. And shortly after, Mr. Robinson really fell from grace in
a theft scandal. I wonder, is there a connection?

I am in the process of advocating a debate and investigation
within my own professional organization (Alberta Association of Architects) of
the WTC building collapses for the benefit of our profession and ultimately for
the benefit of society. As Michael Ruppert correctly pointed out it is futile to
attempt to base an argument on technicalities as one's opponent will always be
able to find an 'expert' capable of refuting one's evidence. However, even the
official explanation of the destroyed WTC 1 and 2 towers stops at the
commencement of collapse and WTC 7 is barely mentioned at all. It seems as
though the 'experts' don't want to say much. Michael Ruppert developed a
brilliant circumstantial argument and perhaps it is now time to supplement it
with a technical approach.

Moving back to my appreciation and admiration of your writing
and advocacy, I am curious as to what is required to invite you as a guest
speaker. I have been to many events sponsored by the Palestinian Canadian
Students' Society here in Calgary (the latest being Ilan Pappe) and want to
suggest to them that you be invited to speak.

Please feel free to post this if you wish. Best wishes to you
and your family.

Mark W. Chambers, Architect

Calgary

From Prof Hatem Radwan, Egypt:

Thanks for your article on Chomsky and the 9/11 crusaders.

First I would like to thank you for your points of
disagreement with Chomsky. You are very insightful, as usual. I would like to
hear from you, on your other criticisms of Chomsky, although I still have
respect for him.

But I would like to add my 2-cents worth of opinion on 9/11.

I believe 9/11 is clearly more complicated than just a
one-sided story. And I have no problem with Israel et al being the main driver
behind much or most of 9/11 and many other evils, since Israel really survives
mainly on support from others anyway. How long would Israel survive without
massive USA support?

In my humble opinion, 9/11 was planned and executed by both
sides of the conflict, almost like two sides of a football team, each team sees
the other planning quietly, each for their own perceived benefit, and both
knowing pretty well what the other side is planning for. They also started the
game at the same time, with the stronger team giving the OK for the weaker team
to start with an advantage. What a fateful game this is, or was. The US (and
Israel) on one side, and a small group of people who were willing to die for it
on the other, whoever they are. Both teams knew and planned for 9/11, the sole
superpower and Israel on one side, and that small group of people on the other.
The US (and Israel) probably infiltrated and actually supported the other guys
to do just what the US desperately needed: a 2nd Pearl Harbor. At the same time,
the other guys also knew very well what they wanted, probably also knowing well
of the US-Israeli infiltration, and taking full advantage of it to achieve their
goals.

This is, or was, probably the last opportunity for the US
to finally complete the dream of the (evil) Empire they so badly wanted; and
Israel happily getting everything it wants without any cost, as usual. But this
had to happen before the new fast rising powers are able to interfere and
close this small window of opportunity for the Empire. This is what the PNAC has
been pushing for so hard. This is probably what Kissinger et al was or would be
thinking.

The other guys also wanted just as badly for this 2nd Pearl
Harbor to happen, for their own reasons of course. They see 9/11 as a great
opportunity to take on a superpower, willing to die to defend their homeland
from domination at any cost, like many people who would do that for their own
country. But these people actually really wanted the US forces to come to
the Middle East, fully believing that they will eventually be able to bring the
US to its knees, similar to the Russians in Afghanistan, economically and
psychologically, and by just killing them one-by-one. They don't want to waste
their time and effort to fight Israel, they want to first weaken the real
supporter behind Israel. And they believe that the apartheid Zionist state will
be weakened and forced into a truly democratic one-state solution, only when the
US is weakened enough, again economically and psychologically. The apartheid
Zionist state is of course the real target, as a brutal, military, most racist
occupation of the worst kind, as well as any other foreign occupiers. My problem
with these jihaadists is that they are willing to justify killing innocent
civilians to save their homeland. And also tempting the enemy to attack us.
Muslims at least should not accept any of that. But isn't that what the west has
justified many times over in WW2 on Germany, Japan and other conflicts. Kill
civilians for us to survive? And 9/11 has been a case of tempting the enemy on
both sides.

So I do believe the 9/11 crusaders are right, to a large
extent, and that the US, Israel and the Mossad did play a major part in this
infamy. I have no problem with believing this. As usual, you should always first
find out who benefits the most from a planned operation. Both the US and Israel
are really the only ones who would benefit significantly from 9/11. But the main
part of this shameful Shock & Awe operation most fortunately failed to a large
extent, which was the Empire, thanks to the Iraqi resistance, as well as the
worldwide psychological support against this most brutal and disastrous
occupation. The whole world will breathe a huge sigh of relief once the US
forces leave Iraq, and what good riddance that will be.

The dreams of Empire are finally starting to fade away,
al-hamd-u L-Illaah. China and Russia are beginning to be a shield against
the evil Empire dreamers. And I hope we will have a multi-polar world in the
near future. Our only real hope for peace in the world is the one-state
Palestine for all. And that is our biggest challenge.

We are still at risk from crazy ideas from Bush et al. I may
be fantasizing, but for now I am holding my breath being optimistic in spite of
the current situation.

Hatem Radwan, Ph.D.

Professor, Mechanical Engineering

Misr University for Science & Technology (MUST)

From Frank Scott, California

I certainly appreciate your defense of Chomsky, and share
your great respect for both his contributions and his freedom to think and act
as he wishes, and not as some mental dictators might insist... he does seem to
me to have a blind spot, but not about 911... his constant minimizing of the
power of the jewish lobby always strikes me as odd, coming form someone so
otherwise learned, but that is the subjective-objective duality that drives so
much of what makes us the creatures we are...as in: why can't he-she-everybody
see what i see, understand and agree with what i think, interpret reality the
way i do?? etc. but on the broader subject and provoked by some of the
passionate responses, may i submit my column from a couple of years back, which
still represents my take on the phenomena of 911 movements, or "the" 911
movement?

The belief that government conspiracy was behind the 911
attacks may seem a mania among otherwise intelligent people, but it also rejects
material reality. In this, it bears resemblance to another reaction to the
physical world. Religious fundamentalism , supposedly Islamic but posing a far
greater menace from nuclear armed Judeo-Christians, questions reality with as
much passion, and as little need for verifiable evidence, as does the conspiracy
faith.

Religious fundamentalism doesn’t pretend to be scientific,
often denying material evidence to prove anything. In many ways it parallels a
911 movement which is based on acceptance of events as fabulist and supernatural
as any believer in divinity can imagine.

If faith can move mountains, it can also apparently destroy
buildings with pre wired explosives, secretly placed while thousands of people
went about their business and saw nothing unusual. Faith also claims that
millions more were duped into believing they saw planes crash into buildings,
rather than buildings destroyed by these planted explosives or missiles. Whether
about the parting of the red sea, a Savior born to a virgin, or a conspiracy
beyond all conspiracies, faith can withstand any need for proof. Faith is proof
of faith.

Legitimate doubts about what our government does and what it
tells us have created contemporary biblical prophets who reveal almost divinely
inspired knowledge about architectural principles, secreted explosives, the
behavior of steel under stress, and construction and demolition principles which
defy physics, as well as sanity. And this while the world seems to be falling
apart, under the control of identifiable political and economic forces which are
often despised, but hardly understood by zealous seekers of physical conspiracy,
or blissful anticipators of metaphysical rapture.

The view of a corrupt authority which murders
indiscriminately to achieve its ends is shared by people both fervently
religious and devoutly secular, even as they consider each other ignorant and
immoral. But believers in fabulist myth, and believers in scientific analysis
which often amounts to fabulist myth , have more in common than they might
willingly admit.

The frustrations that find inner peace through belief in an
invisible universal force, or material powers that need only be identified as
bad people who do bad things, are based on very real injustice and inhumanity. A
dangerous material world under the control of unearthly forces, for some, or
simply hidden behind earthly conspiracies, for others, warrants criticism and
opposition. In fact, such opposition may be healthy in that it exists at all, in
any form. That is, until skepticism and suspicion drives critics to flail at the
air and insist that they are striking matter, or to pray for divine intervention
while doing nothing to change the realm of the physical , instead seeking
contentment in the realm of the metaphysical.

Neither are Eastern contempt for Western secularism and
Western displeasure with reality so far apart. While the physical suffering
endured by the East is much greater, mental stress in the West is so bad that
many attempt escape from reality to find peace of mind, if not body. In a
consumer crazed world that worships the material, seeking spiritual peace may be
the expression of a healthy desire to get off the highway on which humanity
seems to be speeding to disaster.

That spiritual movements often have reactionary and
intolerant aspects is a mark of their development in reactionary and intolerant
societies. Western dualism creates secular and religious movements as conjoined
twins. Their struggle should not be with each other, but with the system which
makes them two sides of the same coin.

When the religious structure is the only one offering
shelter from the storm, it will be crowded with people finding explanations for
reality which strike secularists as illogical, unless they seriously consider
the intellectual foundation for what they often believe. It is easy for some
materialists to dismiss the mythological explanation for the creation of the
universe, but when science offers the big bang theory - there was nothing, and
then it exploded - both groups need to accept their mutual ignorance of cosmic
origins beyond their capacity to fathom, and concentrate on far more threatening
earthly problems whose solutions might well be within their grasp.

The islamic fundamentalists depicted as a menace, to the
West, may be confronting material reality more clearly than it is understood, by
the West. Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are obsessed with the Antichrist
and the AntiSemite, unable to see themselves as the Great Satan, which they
clearly appear to be for the eastern world. The 911 believers in Bush as a more
local antichrist need to broaden their analysis and move from evil personalities
with fiendish plots to failing systems with deadly outcomes. The general
perception of an ugly and cruel reality is shared by people of widely divergent
belief systems. The reasons they find for things breaking down are as diverse as
their cultural shaping allows, but all share a vision which is generally
correct:

There needs to be substantial change in reality, or the
future may be totally tragic, for all. When people begin to seek material
solutions at the roots of material problems, spiritual and mental peace may be
attainable, and the search for conspiracies less necessary. This calls for much
greater understanding and respect among those divergent cultures and belief
systems, which can hardly happen under present conditions. The bloody domination
and control of reality by those adhering to doctrines of racial supremacy who
think themselves more divine than other humans make it necessary for critics of
reality to find common ground, before humanity finds a common grave. Faith that
can move mountains needs to start moving people, towards mutual respect,
democracy and peace.

From Kim Petersen, the Dissident Voice

Israel,

I concur wholeheartedly with the major thrust of your essay
that Noam Chomsky has the right to express his views as he chooses. It is fine
to disagree with people, but it is deplorable to launch an ad hominem
attack against them. Those who disagree with Chomsky would be better served if
they stuck to debating the facts and logic at hand.

In this instance, Kevin Barrett, however nice a man he might
otherwise be, broke trust and etiquette by revealing private correspondence
without the other party's approval. That speaks very poorly on behalf of the
complainant.

Two points: (1) You wrote, "If you were an extremely powerful
Jew able to do 9/11, why would you attack Twin Towers? Would not you rather send
20 Arab fanatics in full battle dress to massacre a kindergarten, a school, and
eat hearts of American babies in live broadcast?"

With all due respect, this is conjecture and facetious.
First, there is the reportedly big insurance pay-out to an "extremely powerful
Jew." Second, there is the evoking of fear among the populace which can then be
more easily manipulated by the powerful. That alleged "Arab fanatics" would
target the Twin Towers, one prominent reason might be to demonstrate that even
after previous thwarted attempts the enemies of the US regime show they can
eventually get to their target. The message to the US public: you are never
safe.

(2) "Chomsky was not afraid to write foreword of Faurisson…"

Factually inaccurate: According to Chomsky, he wrote a
statement, for a friend, in defense of freedom of speech that Faurisson
published against the intention of Chomsky – something Chomsky tried to stop.

I knew of, but was not well versed, with Kevin Barrett. He
appears very passionate about 9-11. But I think he overstepped decency when he
went public with the Chomsky correspondence. Also, even if he had received
permission to publish them, he was thoroughly outperformed by Chomsky and, in
the end, poured further abuse upon himself.

Shamir adds: for Faurisson, I
disagree with Kim’s interpretation, but he insisted on it. So probably you may
read yourself
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm and find there, inter alia,
such an incredibly strong sentence: “There are, in fact, far more dangerous
manifestations of "revisionism" than Faurisson's. Consider the effort to show
that the United States engaged in no crimes in Vietnam, that it was guilty only
of "intellectual error." This "revisionism," in contrast to that of Faurisson,
is supported by the major institutions and has always been the position of most
of the intelligentsia, and has very direct and ugly policy consequences.” Find
another US intellectual, Jew or Gentile, who would be able to repeat it in
writing! I think that this sentence alone may undo all the accusations against
Noam as a “servant of Empire” or “Left Gatekeeper”.

From Paul Bennett, Arizona

…I also am a 911 truther, however I completely agree that
Noam is under no

compulsion to speak about it. I assume he thinks the lack of
evidence

distracts us from the important themes, which already have
plenty of

uncontroversial evidence. We will never know the truth about
911, just like

we will never know the truth about JFK, and MLK. Once we
accept that,

we can move on to the uncontroversial themes, like We Are
Being Milked

I might also be one of the “9/11
Crusaders” (though I personally never like this term) and I have to stress that
the world has been ruled by a vast and serious fiction since that day. Evidence?
I can show you the enormous facts, thousands of facts that have been recorded as
photos, videos or documents, but now I have to tell you one astonishing fact.

I’ve read the articles included in the “Final Report
on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers” by the NIST (National
Institute of Standard and Technology), published in 2005, which has the greatest
responsibility about collapses of the Twin Towers, also its “Answers to
Frequently Asked Questions” in 2006, and “World Trade Center Building
Performance Study” by the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in 2002.

Most of the people in the world have believed that
these institute and agency studied the cause of the Twin Towers’ collapse
sufficiently and decided completely how they collapsed. Apparently they showed
us “how the collapse began” using so many pages. However, …

Sincerely I
must say they have never told us about the collapse itself! There doesn’t
exist only one “official explanation of collapse”!

The “collapse-beginning
theory” by the FEMA said is famous as the “Pancake theory”, which has
already “collapsed” after being revealed that they ignored the fact of the
perimeter columns bending inside just before the beginning of collapse. The FEMA
also show us what they investigated after the Towers’ collapse, which includes
some incorrectness and omission about the debris from the Towers. However,
they never say what happened during the collapse! They never investigated nor
studied a lot of performances the Towers demonstrated in their collapse.

The NIST surely
studied the cause of the “beginning of collapse”, the computer simulation
of which, however, they can never present publicly. And they say in their final
report:

[The focus
of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft
impacts to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this
report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,”
although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after
the condition for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became
inevitable.](NIST NCSTAR; p82)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

In short, “we
did never investigate the WTC Towers’ collapse and won’t do it forever,” for it
is their “final report”. Actually the NIST answered to the families of
the victims in its letter in September 2007 as:

"We are
unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Well, well…
They’ve explained powerfully and energetically the “beginning of collapse” but
never touched the collapse itself, what happened during it, how collapse
concretely sequence itself from the top of the building to the bottom.

These are only
one portion of the photographic information, and I can also show you vast amount
of video information but I don’t want use up your time.

If one has
sufficient knowledge of physics or mechanics, if he/she knows the meanings of
the terms ‘momentum’, ‘energy’, ‘force’, ‘mass’, ‘acceleration’ etc., he/she
will immediately notice what these evidences mean.

The WTC
Towers’ collapse is the greatest key factor of this attack, and in the
“official story” they are reluctant to refer it the most.

There only
exist concealment and fabrication. There are still so many people who believe
jet fuel melted the steel columns of the Twin Tower, the demagogy
delivered by mass media and some shameless scientists immediately after the
attack. Even if jet fuel burns under the best condition, it will produce far
lower temperature than the melting point of steel, which can be known easily by
seeing your kerosene stove. Those who have studied physics in university can
clearly tell us the heat of the fire can never be conducted in the steel column
structure even to the extent of 50 meters. The fire took place in an only small
upper portion of the Towers.

The collapse
of the Twin Tower is physically impossible. It’s clear! Now there is only
one “collapse theory” byZdenek Bazant andYong Zhou who perfectly
and shamelessly throw away the facts seen in collapse into a dump. Many physical
scientists, architects and engineers have always dumed up about this theme. They
can say about the “initiation of collapse” but it is taboo for them to refer
to what happened in the collapse and why.

I only regret
that some intelligent people, like Prof. Noam Chomsky, are very reluctant to
touch the 9/11 attacks. And those who are guarding this fiction always say
“conspiracy theorist!” and “anti-Semite!” to those who doubt the story referring
many facts. But why will pointing the facts and asking the question be
“anti-Semite”??

I can never
understand. Is it “anti-Semite” to say “Why can several hundreds tons of
materials be accelerated horizontally in a very short time, like 0.1 second,
from zero to 20m/s, which requires 20 times as big acceleration as the
gravitational one?” Or, is it “conspiracy theorist” to ask “Why did concrete,
with the greatest volume in the Towers, that fell from 300 meters high, from 100
meters high or even from 10 meters high equally turn into dust with average
diameter of 60 micrometers?”

Yes. It was a
terrorist attack! The terrorists attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They
surely attacked many innocent American people, and 24 innocent Japanese. But
also they attacked our brain, thought and intelligence. They are intellectual
terrorists!

It will be
really regretted that many of the most intelligent people in the world have
ignored this intellectual attack, destruction of scientific knowledge and
ignorance of the facts and avoided referring it, even thinking of it. I believe
Dr. Barrett is one of those intelligent people who have enough courage to accuse
this terrorism.

I don’t know
whether the professor Chomsky is a “gate keeper” or not. I think he might have
some greater concern than facts and truth. That’s all.

The
re-investigation on the attack will be the absolute task for the US Government,
and people who have been fooled and blinded by the “official story” will have to
push the Government to re-research on the fateful incidents.

This is my
point of view. Bye.

From Joe Quinn

You say that you cannot accept the "Mossad/Jews" authorship
of (or at least involvement in) 911 because you "consider it a deeply pro-Jewish
claim implying that only Jews are capable of enterprises of great pith and
moment". But the rational discourse on 9/11 does not point the finger at Mossad
on this basis but rather on the basis of the available evidence. Two central
pieces of this evidence being the airport security companies at 3 of the 4
airports being owned by former Israeli security personnel, and the "dancing
Israelis" - reportedly Mossad and/or other Israeli military intelligence members
- who were apprehended on 9/11.

As for Chomsky, I agree that he is entitled to his opinion
and should not be attacked for holding it. But is it not simply that Chomsky
fails to accept the Israeli - 9/11 connection, but that he has dismissed
investigation into the 9/11 attacks as unimportant. Again, this is his opinion,
but it is hard to understand how a man of his intelligence could honestly come
to such a conclusion. You suggest that Chomsky is the "big gun", and this is
true, but only because of his position and standing in the academic world, and I
believe this may be a contributing factor to his stance on 9/11. Mr Chomsky not
only has a reputation to uphold, but also a job to keep and a family to provide
for. There have been others in US academia that have already learned that the
"9/11 truth movement" tends to have a decidedly negative effect on their
careers.

Joe Quinn

Sott.net

From Dr. Siegfried E. Tischler

CHOMSKY: somebody who has been treading on nearly ALL toes
there are for half a century does have a most amazing collection of enemies. As
you so rightly point out - without him the academic world of dissent would be a
hell of a lot poorer; as the Sufi say: a Guru has to only show his disciple what
to read and what to do.... the HOW is up to them.

From Blagovesta Doncheva - Bulgaria

I. Re your – alas, our – 11th of September

I was of those who celebrated the 11.09. CELEBRATED. I repeat
it to clear away all possible doubts I have written just that. We CELEBRATED -
as many people round the world DID. We gathered in the afternoon of that same
day in a cafe and drunk a cup of coffee each – we were too poor to allow
ourselves something more. (Today we are even poorer – too poor to allow
ourselves even entering a cafe… A boring detail, excuse me.)

It was a wonderful afternoon – so sunny, so calm – as the
first sunny day after a long ugly storm. I won’t forget that feeling of freedom
– the restored ability to breathe freely again – as if an enormous pressure had
been taken off our chests after a very long time. We sat there round an outside
table basking in the sun, not talking, simply smiling quietly to one another,
handshaking with other people who came to our table with their joyous
"Congratulations!” Yes, we all did that – congratulating one another as if that
day were a national holiday – i.e. a very meaningful international holiday. At
that moment we could not imagine that it was in fact the Bloody Beginning of the
Bloody Return to the Dark Ages in the XXI-st Century… We were like slightly
drunk persons – drunk from that newly found freedom to breathe again after more
than ten years. And, N.B.! - even on that Day of Emotions one of us dared to
say: “It is impossible …

THEY have done it themselves.” We quickly hushed her – we
did not want to be rational yet… children-like, we wanted to elongate that newly
found ability to notice and enjoy a nice day - although we all felt the stirring
warnings deep inside...

But the 12th of September was the Day of Rational Thinking.
And then, with that heavy burden again back in our hearts we called one another
and arranged another meeting – this time the Meeting of Logically Thinking
Adults, not a group of smiling children. We met in the same cafe, so forlorn, so
sad, so full of horrifying forebodings. Again there was no need to talk. We sat
there silently, even not daring to look one another in the eyes fearing we can
see the horror we felt in the eyes of the others...

I repeat: we K-N-E-W it was an inside job on the next day of
11th of September. Not on the basis of the facts you have unraveled since then
but by the simple force of the simple LOGICAL THINKING. And we are VERY ORDINARY
PEOPLE. Yes, ordinary people but well informed. We had already read about Pearl
Harbor. The Tonkin Bay. The US Liberty – and especially Berlin's Reichstag (now
nobody remembers Georgi Dimitrov – but we do, he was one of us, he was a
Bulgarian – how could we forget it?) And not only this. Just about that time we
were actively engaged in unraveling the manufactured LIES of CIA think-tanks
about the SOVIET UNION and STALIN. So, we K-N-E-W. On the 12th of September we
KNEW. And when the Truth Movement appeared (at last!) and began to stir I read
some of the facts they gathered, satisfied myself that they ALL proved what we
KNEW, and stopped following their efforts – what for? We are well educated
Slavs, not a heap of US citizens

deliberately amputated of the ability to think – to ask
questions and find answers – in the US schools. (Now the same is being done in
our Bulgarian schools with our Bulgarian children…) But in Socialist Bulgaria my
generation had been DELIBERATELY taught to THINK – to ANALYZE – to OBSERVE and
MAKE CONCLUSIONS! So, I am neither 1/ one of the purposefully brainwashed US
citizens to be explained at length that sun was rising in the East (and that
sun” and “East” are not a thing you can buy in the neighboring mall), nor 2/ a
comfortably established OFFICIAL “dissident” like your Chomsky The Great Lion
Heart.

So much for the Beginning of the End for our Planet – 11th of
September 2001.

II. Re your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart

I personally also passed through the stage of admiring
Chomsky. I have translated a book and long articles by him into Bulgarian (And –
of course – I very often stumbled on his notorious sentences almost every third
of which started at the beginning of a page and ended almost at its bottom. I
had to cut them into several independent sentences to make his writing
understandable! Even at that early stage I used to ask myself for whom he was,
in fact, writing. Definitely not for an ordinary reader, I told myself. Now I
suspect that one of the reasons he was approved for an OFFICIAL “dissident”
might be the fact that his writings were apparently addressed to a narrow
university and scholarly elite that can NEVER get dangerous and turn into a
“Threat to the National Security of the USA”. (I hope I have quoted that
notorious BLOOD-DRIPPING, CORPSE-SMELLING phrase…)

And then I came across worrying things – small things I
kicked back and don’t remember but they stayed there and kept sending red
signals.

Till YUGOSLAVIA and 24th of March 1999.

24th of March is a religious holiday for us, the Orthodox
Slavs – Annunciation. And also my Name Day: translated, my name is Annuncia.
Well, I have no Name Day anymore – it was bombed away in 1999. But still I must
be regarded as a very lucky person: I have lost a Name Day, but I am alive and
whole in difference to the butchered Serbs – Iraqis – Afghans – Pakistani -
Palestinians - African people - Haiti people – and so on and so forth to the End
of the World…

On 24th of March 1999 USA and EU + Canada started bombing
YUGOSLAVIAN children and elderly, hospitals and churches, TV stations and
embassies, plants and houses. Gum chewing IDIOTS installed in war planes started
destroying a well-to-do country almost in the heart of Europe.

And what was the justifiable OFFICIAL reason for that
MONSTROISITY?

That the President of YUGOSLAVIA – an intelligent leader of a
country but definitely NOT a fighter – had managed to eat for breakfast 100,000+
Albanians (maybe together with their cows, pigs and lice. I don’t know. CIA
wouldn’t say.)

Mind – we are talking about an European country with highly
educated population and century long history of culture. We are NOT talking
about an African tribe from the 15th century - or some century BC.

Not well worked out reason – very bad CIA job indeed.

Don’t worry – it is only a preamble. I haven’t forgotten I am
writing about your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart.

One day I received a copy of his newest book on still the
newest USA war enterprise - in EUROPE this time - and an offer that we translate
it into Bulgarian and publish it here. So I started reading – I had already got
a glimpse of his position on the USA and EU + Canada aggression on YUGOSLAVIA
but I had chosen not to believe - in homage to Chomsky still The Great for me.
But – here it was in his book staring at me: Milosevic the Man-Eater (the
Monster, The Vampire, John the Ripper, etc.) had eaten/killed/butchered/fried at
stakes, boiled in huge cauldrons, etc. thousands and thousands and thousands of
poor, innocent, white clothed, angel-like Albanians – WAW! Aw! W!

I wrote to him asking him HOW DID HE KNOW.

You can’t imagine his answer – you simply can’t!

He wrote that he has read it in the CIA (!!!) DOCUMENTS!!!

I swear that is just what he wrote! No joke. No mistake. He
wrote that surely without batting an eye.

A pause – to give you time to laugh hilariously or shed a
bitter tear.

I didn’t do either. I never wrote to him again. Since that
day for me your Chomsky The Great Lion Heart is stone dead. He does NOT exist in
my world. But you have chosen to let him linger in your worlds. Your choice. And
when you began discussing him in, approximately, the line of “to be or not to
be” – i.e. is he Great? Or Shit? Maybe he is not great but only a Lion? Or
governmental OFFICIAL “dissident” licking governmental ASSES 24 hours per day? –
I feel like screaming. But I can’t do that because I live in a crowded city not
in the woods (what a pity!). Still, periodically you most obstinately devote
yourselves on endless - on the surface aimless - discussions of the "Good Man" –
excuse me, the “Very Kind Man” (now the quote is right, isn’t it, dear Jocelyn?
By the way, we are NOT discussing his character here and eventually appetite,
but his political opinions and positions. Don’t worry, it is only a tiny detail
– and

you’re not to blame. It is your “education” system - or,
more exactly, the total lack of it.)

I want to ask you all a question: aren’t there heaps of
really troublesome subjects to discuss and think over? I wonder why exactly Mr.
Shamir has started that time-losing, worthless discussion? Just when an USraeli
nuclear war is looming at the horizon...

Some millions will die very soon in the horror of the nuclear
mushrooms – but what are some millions for us to cry for them at least?

Let’s instead discuss an US governmental servant.

Now do you understand why THEY need official “dissidents”?
Look what good work both Chomsky and – alas! – Shamir have done for THEM!

From
Hans Olaf Brendberg, Norway

Shamir: A
little comment on the Chomsky debate:

Chomsky – like
everybody else – should be criticized when his argument is one-sided, erroneous
or suffers from lack of logic. But Chomsky is not a man free to take on every
question. He is an old man who has only limited time left to complete his lifes
work, and our enemies wold delight if this work could be derailed, even on minor
issues.

And the label
of “gatekeeper” does not fit. Chomsky is not the man who make polemic against
“antisemites”, “conspiracy theorists” etc. He is silent on some issues – and
that silence should be respected, at least up to a point. We should also keep in
mind the role Chomsky has had in promoting the work of others, eg. Israel
Shahak, Norman Finkelstein etc. That is not a “gatekeepers” role. But his
comment on Mearsheimer/Walt was not his best moment – and there he maybe played
the role of gatekeeper.

The problem is
not Chomsky, but the “Chomskyites”, the lazy and small-minded leftist who do not
want the job of clearing new field for thought – like Chomsky do – but who
strictly limit themselves to the terrain already cleared by Chomsky, and who
dogmatically condemns everyone who seek gain new terrain in different
directions. I really am not sure that Chomsky is all that happy about having
this kind of followers, but as we know: In politics you cannot always select
your own following.

I really think
Jeff Blankfort and James Petras make a lot of sense when they try to point out
the weaknesses of leftist analysis of the Palestine question. But I think they
are too harsh with Chomsky. Their main target is/should be these kind of
narrow-minded leftist of the “chomskyite” type. Those people should be
confronted more, without making Chomsky himself the main problem. Our
differences with Chomsky is important enough, but could be discussed without
making his person a big issue. He is a man who has done more than his job, and
this demands respect even when one disagree on minor issues of principle.

From Marek Glogoczowski, Krakow

As your last publication in [shamireaders] on Chomsky
avoiding the 911 question, it turned to be very fruitful for all of us. For ex.
I didn't know that the official version of 911 investigation contains no
detailed information how three high rise building collapsed. I am
myself convinced that two WTC buildings were attacked not by pilots-suicides,
but by pilot-less planes and missiles: the precision of hits was so great that
no human would do it: in September 2000 I saw in Belgrade how precise were GPS
guided missiles which hit governmental high rise buildings there in spring 1999,
only few hundred yards away from US Embassy (and from the apartment house on
Kneza Milosa St., in which stayed my friend Yves Bataille during these
bombings!). Seeing at TV a plane doing similar manoeuvre in New York,
immediately I thought that it was done hi-tech.

From Paul Bennett, Arizona

Shamir,

Marek's article compared the WTC to the Temple of the Gold
Calf. That comparison interested me because of the supposedly Jewish hand behind
911.

I am not one who believes that "The Jews" were "behind" 911,
although it's obvious that many Wall Street investors were informed beforehand.
However, it was not "The Jews" who implemented and participated in the
concurrent 911 wargames, and it was not "The Jews" who kept US air defense
grounded until the events had played themselves out.

Furthermore, it *is* "US" who, knowing full well that
steel-core buildings do not collapse like that - under any circumstances save
carefully placed thermite and explosives - it is "US" who remain silent. It is
"US" who overlook the improbable point of impact on the Pentagon, "US" who
ignore the videos surrounding the destruction of WTC7 - including Larry
Silverstein's public confession on PBS - it is "US" who are content to be guided
by whatever "The Media" choose to display for "US".

Tisha B'Av, it so happens, is the ninth day of the eleventh
month on the Hebrew calendar, which means it is the original 9/11, the Jewish
people's day of infamy.

"Ground zero" is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where the
two Temples stood before being sacked by the Babylonians and the Romans,
centuries apart.

I'm sure you are aware of the strong emphasis placed on
symbology and numerology in the Jewish Kabbala. The same is true in
Free-masonry, which shares many of the same symbols. Personally, I prefer to
think that the shadowy forces "behind" events like 911 are the work of David
Icke's reptilian humanoids. However, much evidence points to regular human
beings who (perhaps controlled by reptilian humanoids!) are powerful enough to
pull off tricks like 911.

Clearly, we are sheep being led to the slaughter. Every day
we hear new reports of "suicide bombers" doing this and that. How are we to know
the difference between the destruction caused by a "suicide bomber" and the
destruction caused by a device installed by Special Forces? We rely on the
declaration of the military police and the assertions of "The Media". And yet we
believe.

So why this continous effort to control us, keep us fearing
for our lives, our families, our way of life? Why would people powerful enough
to orchestrate a show like 911 spend all this time and effort on us, a bunch of
spineless sheep only too happy to participate in our own destruction? Are we
that unruly? Could we perhaps be dangerous?

Noam Chomsky has written a lot saying that it is immoral or
the Israelis to have taken the land of the Palestinian people and then, as
though it is all part of what just went before, he announces that is immoral for
anyone to encourage the Palestinian people to think that they could ever return!
I find that creepy. Not only has he no right to make such an announcement,
as if he were God, but it is done in a way which seem to me designed to befuddle
and confuse. The great man, the great intellect pronounces thus.
I have not picked up another book of his.
Furthermore, it is so obvious that 9/11 was in inside job and it is most likely
that Israel had something to do with it, given their nasty ways and their
devious way of going about things that I cannot forgive Noam Chomsky for trying
to sweep this under the carpet.
Simply put, I do not trust Noam Chomsky and he has made me doubly suspicious of
Jews generally!
You excepted, of course, and some others - but it is time you faced up to what
happened on 9/11. Read the latest of Chris Bollyn's work on the subject.
You can find it on www.bollyn.com or on the excellent
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk Sending you my warm affection again. I hope
you are very well. I am worrying about the people of Gaza.
And Jericho and other places. Did you know that Jericho was destroyed by an
earthquake at least a thousand years before the fictitious "Joshua" was
supposedly around? I hope that does not bother you - I LOVE the truth, but I
find even some strong and tough grown men cannot take their beliefs being
shaken! It is amazing - someone a long time ago put words into the mouth
of "God" and they take it as though God actually SAID those things. Very
odd! Don’t you think so?

Astraea.

John Spritzler advises to read
Elias Davidsson: Have you ever seen persuasive evidence that Muslims hijacked
planes on 9/11? Mere government assertions, as Elias Davidsson demonstrates in
this powerful article (see link above), don't count. Davidsson argues that there
is no such evidence. If you or anybody you know can provide such evidence,
please let me know. Until I see credible evidence of Muslim hijackers, however,
I will continue to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Nobody except Noam Chomsky can know his intent. And yes,
Chomsky, like anybody, has the right to choose what issues to speak out on, and
what issues to remain silent on. But that does not mean we cannot be
critical--very critical--of his decisions.

As a person who has written and organized against Zionism for
a number of years now, I have found Noam Chomsky's failure to speak out for
Palestinians' right of return infuriating. I was appalled, for example, by the
Chomsky/Dershowitz
"debate" at the Harvard School of Government in which these two men only
disagreed about who was more responsible for the failure of a two-state solution
to be implemented--the United States and Israel, or the Palestinians. Chomsky
did not raise the issue of Israel's ethnic cleansing--the fundamental
Palestinian grievance, and the root of the conflict. Chomsky's role in this
debate was to accept uncritically Dershowitz's (and the Zionists') framework of
discourse: that the conflict is simply about where the borders between two
states should be drawn. The job of anti-Zionists is to reject this framework,
by asserting that the true issue in the conflict is the denial by Israel of
Palestinian individuals' human right of return (and compensation for stolen
property), regardless of any state borders? When somebody like Chomsky, with a
reputation for being the world's most prominent "anti-Israel"
intellectual, accepts uncritically the Zionist framework, as he did in this
debate, then I do not think it is unfair to characterize Chomsky's role as
giving aid and comfort to the Zionist enemy. The effect, if not his intent, is
to do just that.

Having said this, I also cannot go along with one particular
criticism of Chomsky that I hear a lot (from people like James Petras and
others)--that Chomsky fails to assert that the Israel Lobby (the "tail") is the
cause of the U.S.'s pro-Israel foreign policy and that the U.S. plutocracy (the
"dog" that is "wagged by the tail") is not, itself, responsible. This is a
strange criticism, on two counts.

First, it is strange because making the causal role of the
Israel Lobby the focus of outrage cannot help but imply, logically, that the
U.S.'s pro-Israel policy, per se, is not the main problem, but rather the
main problem is that Americans loyal to a foreign country are making U.S.
foreign policy, and that the solution, therefore, is to get "loyal true blue"
Americans who will work exclusively for "the American national interest" [a
bogus concept, by the way] back into power. And what if such "loyal" and
"patriotic" Americans make a convincing argument that it really is in "our
national interest" to support Israel? The logic of these tail-wags-dog'ers'
framework is that, well then, a pro-Israel foreign policy would be ok.

Just because Noam Chomsky simultaneously 1) is a person who
fails to advocate for Palestinians' right of return or to condemn Israel's
ethnic cleansing (Chomsky only "advocates" what is "possible" and doesn't deign
to "condemn" what is "not possible to change") and 2) is a person who denies
that tail wags dog, does not mean that there is any logical reason why the
second fact implies the first. For example, the second fact is true of me, but
NOT the first.

Second, arguing that the big problem with Chomsky is that he
doesn't asert that the Israel Lobby is the cause of the U.S.'s pro-Israel
foreign policy is strange because it assumes that the dog really does wag the
tail, when the evidence suggests exactly the opposite. What evidence? The fact
that if the tail were wagging the dog, the dog would at least bark and show
signs of its displeasure at being so wagged. But there are no such signs. Among
the American corporate elite, nobody is trying to resist the "power of the
Israel Lobby"; no American billionaire, for example, uses his or her money to
tell the truth about Zionist ethnic cleansing (or Zionist leaders' betrayal of
European Jews during the Holocaust) to the American public, and yet they could
easily do so, even if it meant spending 10 or so billion dollars to create an
independent media for the purpose (hell, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet throw
enough money at their foundations to fund five media empires the size of Rupert
Murdoch's.) The "tail-wags-dog"ers say, "Oh, the billionaires are too afraid of
being called 'antisemitic' by the Israel Lobby to do that." What?! People like
myself and my friends in the
Somerville Divestment Project, who are not financially independent, can tell
the public the truth about Zionism and get away with it, but financially
independent billionaires cannot? What nonsense.

[Chomsky explains Iraq war not by oil or by Jewish Lobby, but
by imperialist attitude as in Vietnam war]

International affairs are much like the Mafia: the Godfather
cannot tolerate disobedience even from a small storekeeper who fails to pay
protection money, or “the rot might spread and spoil the barrel,” in the
terminology of US planners: the rot of successful independent development, out
of US control.

My apologies for the typos and other errors in my Chomsky
piece. I am usually not quite that sloppy but it was late and I had had two
beers :-)

I also am a 'flow writer' and the items I was linking into
the piece were popping up quickly. At my age now I have learned I have to type
fast before I forget them :-)

People on this list do care about what is true and that is
why it is always a pleasure to read and post here. Israel made a great
contribution to us all by building this thing. Before this list, most Net listS
tended to be homogenous ones, of two sided ones where they fought like cats and
dogs. What the Shamir list did is raise the level of discussion on these issues
which was sorely needed.

Heritage TV is trying to make a similar breakthrough, but
using multimedia as my format as I have a lot of archival footage including
MidEast and footage of Israel's lecture here at Emory. Our media (via the Lobby
here) has a total blackout on him. We can break that with our own NetTV.

The goal is to create something on the level on a PBS or
History Channel website. I think that will shock the hell out of the Lobby
folks. They fear the Net more than anything.

Video quality was something that I wanted to be the best
possible. That is what my web tutor and I have been polishing up on. Good
webpage graphics has been difficult as we have found no experienced folks to
help out so we are stumbling through it ourselves.

Below is a link to peek at some sample clips to give you an
idea. This is a private link now as it is not ready for the public. I share this
with you as I plan to do NetRadio on the site, too, as that is faster and
cheaper to do. I can interview Israel over the phone, pull some still shots out
of his video footage for a slide show and have something on the Net the day
after we record and interview.

This initial material is for the Sons of Confederate Veterans
as I am a descendant of many of these soldiers on my mother's side. I will do a
smaller version one for my main vet org, then move on to doing Heritage TV's
site. Much of the material will overlap...and of course I will have a MidEast,
Zionism, and Jewish Lobby section there (all solid archival based
material)...which will kill 90% of any fundraising for the site. When I did my
first MidEast, Jewish Lobby community tv shows, 50% of what little funding
support I had evaporated in a week. That is the way it goes and you just have to
bite the bullet and keeping moving on when that happens.

The fourth website will be one for the Assoc of Former
Intelligence Officers. There are a lot of people in the retired Intel community
who are just sick of how the public has been manipulated with bogus information.
They just don't have a forum or platform to do anything about it. I have been
field testing declassified intel material of folks for a couple of years now and
found it works very very well, even on hard heads. Fortunately there is tons of
it available. That will be the main resource. You force the opposition to argue
with the archives. That makes personal smear attacks on the provider (their
usual tactic) a waste of time.

The plan is to cross pollinate these different groups by
cross posting the same or similar material, an indirect way to get them to start
learning things about the others that they generally don't know, to break down
the myth barriers. By the end of 2009 I will know if it is working or not.

And where did I get the idea for doing this? ..... from the
Shamir list, of course :-)

Hi Israel,
I must say that I object to [my] two emails being pieced together to appear as
one. The second email (only a portion thereof) was a reply to your email, and
without your email appearing, it conveys a false impression. If you want to do
this, then a proper etiquette would be to ask permission first.
kim

Shamir replied: Please accept
my apologies; it was done for place economy in what became a too-long email. I
tried to preserve your comment in its entirety and summed up your position.

Petersen insists: Therefore, in
all fairness, I request that you inform your readers that my two emails were
stitched together with parts missing and that your email in between was
unpublished.

From Come Carpentier

Those who have followed the (private) investigations into
911, read the books and watched the often extremely well made and convincing
videos have long accepted the obvious conclusion: it was a gigantic Black Op
carried out by the occult power that controls the US and most of the Western
world...However, the embargo on truth is so powerful that is may be long before
it is finally accepted publicly since most people prefer, for safety's sake, not
to challenge official versions of events. Look at the JFK assassination. The
"lone gunman" official theory has long been discredited but it is still the
'truth' taught in schools and nobody has been able to get the real facts
admitted by the world at large. The status quo requires that the USA be regarded
as a democratic "force for good" which makes mistakes but does not
systematically commit evil actions. Anyone who says otherwise must be an
incurable 'conspiracy theorist'.

Another now indisputable fact: hundreds of (very) high level official witnesses
and participants have formally stated, often under oath, that we are being
visited by very advanced Extra-Terrestrial (and/or Extra-Dimensional)
intelligent humanoid lifeforms since at least sixty years and there are tens of
thousands of documented, recorded incidents, many of which left physical
evidence of those visits...yet the Government-which-never-lies has continued to
deny it all and most people still prefer to ignore the facts for fear of losing
their material comfort and their relative degree of security in
society...Likewise the truth of 911 is likely to remain buried in the closets of
collective consciousness as a dirty family secret.

From James Hanson: here is the
transcript I referred to, where Mr. Chomsky explains his position on 9/11.

Transcript
of a video of Noam Chomsky speaking to an unidentified audience somewhere in
Europe, possibly Portugal, in late 2006,

“ . . . though
true, it is just one of the power systems in the world that gained from it. Did
they plan it that way or know anything about it? It seems so extremely
unlikely. For one thing it would have been insane to try anything like that.
If they had, it's almost certain that it would have leaked. It is a very poor
system, secrets are very hard to keep, so something would have leaked out, very
likely. And if it had, they would have all been before firing squads and that
would have been the end of the Republican Party forever. I mean, to take a
chance on that, even if you could control what was heard, it was completely
unpredictable what would happen. You couldn't predict that a plane would
actually hit the World Trade Center. It happened that it did, but it could
easily have missed. You could hardly control it. What we could be almost
certain of is that any hint of a plan would have leaked and would have just
destroyed them. And to take a chance on something like that would be
meaningless.

“Now there's a
big industry in the United States, on the left as well. You should see the
E-mails I get, there's a huge internet industry from the left, trying to
demonstrate that there's books coming out, best sellers in France and so on,
that this was all fake and was planned by the Bush Administration and so on. If
you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would
instantly discount that evidence. There's plenty of coincidences and
unexplained phenomena to explain, why did this happen and why did that happen
and so on. But if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same
thing is true. When somebody carries out a controlled scientific experiment at
the best laboratories, at the end there are lots of things that are unexplained
and there are plenty of coincidences of this and that. And if you want to get a
sense of it, take a look at the letters columns in the technical scientific
journals, like Nature, Science, or something. The letters are commonly about
unexplained properties of reports of technical experiments, carried out under
controlled conditions which are just going to leave a lot of things
unexplained. That's the way the world is. When you take a natural event, not
something that is controlled, most of it will be unexplained. There will be all
sorts of things, things that happened. Afterwards you can put them into some
kind of pattern, but beforehand you can't. And the pattern may be completely
aimless but you can put in some other pattern too. That's just the way
complicated events are.

“So the
evidence that has been produced, in my opinion, is essentially worthless. And
the belief that it could have been done is--so--has such low credibility that I
don't really think it--(startled look to his right) I shouldn't say--you know
I'm pretty isolated on this in the west. A large part of the left completely
disagrees on this and has all kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories about how
it happened and why it happened and so on. First of all, I think it's
completely wrong but also I think it's diverting people from serious issues. I
mean it just doesn't, I mean even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely,
who cares? It doesn't have any significance.

“It's a little
bit like the huge energy that was put out in trying to figure out who killed
John F. Kennedy. Who knows, and who cares? I mean, how many people get killed
all the time, what does it matter if one of them was John F. Kennedy? If there
was some reason to believe there was a high level conspiracy, it might be
interesting, but the evidence against that is overwhelming. And after that, if
it just happened to be a jealous husband or mafia, or someone else, what
difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues for
ones that don't matter. And I think that the same is true here.”

Transcribed by James R. Hanson, Columbus, OH 12/28/06 from a video on you.tube.

As a person who has written and organized against Zionism for
a number of years now, I have found Noam Chomsky's failure to speak out for
Palestinians' right of return infuriating. I was appalled, for example, by the
Chomsky/Dershowitz
"debate" at the Harvard School of Government in which these two men only
disagreed about who was more responsible for the failure of a two-state solution
to be implemented--the United States and Israel, or the Palestinians.

Well this is routine really. All of us are activists...up to
a point.

All the people in the Navy, especially all the Naval
Intelligence officers who know what really happened to the USS Liberty, they
don't go home at night and cry their eyes out because they don't have the
courage to stand up to the Navy who now assumes a 'no comment' position on the
Liberty. Why? Because 'no new information has come out'.

Of course the information that has come out is more than
adequate to disgrace the Navy's going along with the civilian leadership in
covering up a war crime on American servicemen, which happens to be felony here.
This has a little to do with their not speaking out.

A lot of American Southerners are good solid freedom lovers,
individual rights, freedom of speech folks, etc...until you get critical of
Israel in any way. Then you are the devil and deserve to be treated as such with
no mercy. The next day they will give a talk about how the North conquered by
force of arms the Southern States who under the Constitution and all the legal
books at the time had a perfect right to secede. The Reconstruction period after
our Civil War was a semi West Bank situation with Marshall Law for twelve years,
loss of voting rights, doctors and dentists could not practice...the list goes
on and on.

You would think that what they went through they would easily
see the similarity with the Pals. But no. The Christian Zionism programing kicks
in and that rules.

The same is going on here with Chomsky and many others. They
are activists up to a point, until something more important to them kicks in,
like keeping their jobs.

Navy recruiters do not disclose to new recruits that if they
are murdered by Israeli troops that the Navy will do nothing about it if ordered
so by the civilian leadership...even it that is due to 'political
considerations'. The 34 killed and 174 wounded on the Liberty were a modern
version of an Aztec sacrifice. Pleasing the Gods was deemed more important. And
we all know who the Gods are here. Just listening to the Presidential candidates
at the AIPAC convention reveals that quite clearly.

None of the goyim attending the AIPAC kneepad show went home
and cried themselves to sleep over their cowardice to stand up to the Lobby
here, or shame at even empowering them more. The folks that have what I call
'situational ethics' have developed coping systems to live with themselves, and
are often finely honed.

Chomsky has his. The Navy PR lady has hers as due the
AIPCA attendees. Robert MacNamara, who still refuses to discuss the Liberty
despite his detailed exposes on his Viet Nam days controversies, has not shot
himself.

We have tons of nice Jewish people here, freedom loving small
government conservatives, and then the give a government helping hand in all
situations Democrats. But if they got an invitation to a Palestinian lynching
party many would go. And virtually all who would find going in person unpleasant
would not bother to call the authorities.

The way it works here is 'you don't have to dirty your own
little hands, we will take care of that...but you benefit from our scaring the
goyim to death and will be safer the more they fear us, so we expect your
support and we can take cash, check or charge....now.'

Lots of Jews here who would not be caught dead supporting the
Klu Klux Klan have no problem at all supporting the Hebrew Klan supremacists.
Their reason of 'well, it's good for Jews'...does not extend to 'well, it's good
for the Klu Klux Klan, so that makes it OK'.

This is a perfect example of situational ethics. Both groups
are quite comfortable morally with their positions, while being horrified of the
other's.

And lastly, I can assure you that the Christian Zionist here
do not cry themselves to sleep for being members of what I call the Christian
Jihadii movement, 'Death to all non-believers...and the sooner the better
because then we can drink Koolaid and take a free ride on the big space ship'.

What makes Chomsky's case so horrible...an Olympic Gold medal
one for intellectual dishonesty, is that he has written so extensively
on business elitist mass manipulation, really fabulous work for which we are all
grateful. And then he flicks a switch and goes over to the elitist manipulators
on the Pal issues, one where there has been so much elitist manipulation it
screams out at you it is so obvious.

Chomsky could never honestly claim that he was unaware of it.
He is simply OK with it because he perceives a some kind of benefit. It's like
living in New York City and being an Atlanta Braves fan. It is what it is.

If I were Chomsky I might shoot myself over the shame. But if
I were going to do that I would invite Allan Dershowitz to dinner first and make
a good day of it :-)